Category Archives: 2018-19

UO Presidential Contract renewal input

On TuesdaySep 4, 2018, at 5:05 PM, Angela Wilhelms <wilhelms@uoregon.edu> wrote:

Hi Bill,

The contract is a personnel matter between the president and the board, in this case led by the board chair. General input as you suggest was not solicited. As you are aware, matters before the board – including this contract – are posted online for review and anyone is able to make public comment if they so desire.

If you are asking more generally about the valuation, not the contract per se, the adopted presidential evaluation process was followed, which includes feedback from direct reports, deans, and trustees. The faculty, staff, and student trustee often provide information gleaned from the prior year’s office hours, interactions with various groups, etc. And much of the trustees information is also informed by routine updates. The more comprehensive 360-style review is in year five.

Angela

Board of Trustees of the University of Oregon
Resolution: Amendments to Presidential Review Management and Process

From: Bill Harbaugh <harbaugh@uoregon.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 10:32 AM
To: Angela Wilhelms <wilhelms@uoregon.edu>
Cc: Elizabeth Skowron <eskowron@uoregon.edu>; Melanie Muenzer <muenzer@uoregon.edu>
Subject: Presidential contract renewal input

Dear Board Secretary Wilhelms:

I’m writing as Senate President to ask you to provide the Senate with information showing which UO faculty members, students, administrators, or employees were asked to provide to provide input to the board regarding President Schill’s proposed contract renewal, and what process was used to solicit this input (e.g. letters, anonymous surveys, etc.)

Thanks,

Bill Harbaugh
Economics Prof & Senate Pres
University of Oregon
http://senate.uoregon.edu

 

President Schill’s Response to US17/18-20: Differential Tuition

From: President Michael Schill <pres@uoregon.edu>
Subject: President Schill’s response to Senate resolution US17/18-20
Date: July 20, 2018 at 2:19:21 PM PDT
To: Senate President <senatepres@uoregon.edu>, Senate Vice President <senatevp@uoregon.edu>

Cc: Betina Lynn <betina@uoregon.edu>, Melanie Muenzer <muenzer@uoregon.edu>, Greg Stripp <stripp@uoregon.edu>, Angela Wilhelms <wilhelms@uoregon.edu>

Dear Senate President Bill Harbaugh and Vice President Elizabeth Skowron,

Attached is a letter from President Schill regarding Senate resolution US17/18-20. The Framework document referenced in the letter is also attached.

Please distribute this letter to members of the University of Oregon Senate.

Sincerely,

Office of the President


President Schill’s Response
Differential Tuition Framework

Temporary Discrimination Policy Extension

From: Bill Harbaugh <harbaugh@uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: Policy 580.015 – Discrimination
Date: June 29, 2018 at 12:36:30 AM PDT
To: Angela Wilhelms <wilhelms@uoregon.edu>
Cc: Melanie Muenzer <muenzer@uoregon.edu>, Elizabeth Skowron <eskowron@uoregon.edu>, Missy Matella <mmatella@uoregon.edu>

Dear Angela –

Writing as Senate President, I agree that given this situation the best course of action is to extend the current policy, problematic as it is, for another 6 months.

My understanding is that AGC Missy Matella had been the point person for the Discrimination Policy revision process, and that she will continue to be in her new HR job. I’m ccing her on this, and I would appreciate it if she could send the Senate a list of the set of policies that the administration believes will interact with the Discrimination Policy, with her explanation of the interactions, so that we can formulate a plan with her and you to get this and the other policies revised in a timely fashion.

Thanks,

Bill Harbaugh
Economics Prof & Senate Pres
University of Oregon
http://senate.uoregon.edu

On SundayJun 24, 2018, at 1:42 PM, Angela Wilhelms <wilhelms@uoregon.edu> wrote:

Dear Bill and Elizabeth:

This email is in my university secretary role.

As you know, the UO inherited a number of Oregon Administrative Rules (OARs) from the state and has systematically been working through these to ensure they are updated, necessary, clear, etc.

One such OAR is 580.015, et seq., titled “Discrimination.” This OAR was out of date with certain federal requirements and other UO policies, so the president enacted some temporary changes in 2016 to account for this. As you know, temporary changes are limited to a 6-mo lifespan.  These have been renewed a couple of times and we are at a point where they need to be renewed again.

I recognize that the spirit of temporary policies is not simply continued extension and hope that you believe me when I say these multiple extensions are not a way to circumvent the policy process.

In actually, it’s just a complicated set of policies that Title IX, AAEO, General Counsel, HR and others have not wanted to finish until other related policies are done.

The current temporary approval expires July 12 and there is a request by the offices above for one more extension. They need more time during a school year (when faculty and students are around) to work on permanent edits and then have the senate consider those that relate to the various academic sections of the policy.

The policy can be found here, and attached is the redline that shows the changes currently in effect from the base policy.

Please let me know if you wish to discuss this further or have any questions.

Thank you for your understanding.

Angela

Angela Wilhelms
University Secretary & Advisor to the President
University of Oregon
O: 541.346.5561
C: 541.931.5426
wilhelms@uoregon.edu


UO Policy 580.015 Discrimination – TEMP CHANGES REDLINE 08-18-16-2gx8xtp

 

Oregonian Op-Ed and UO Senate Resolution

From: Bill Harbaugh <harbaugh@uoregon.edu>
Subject: Oregonian Op-Ed and UO Senate Resolution.
Date: July 8, 2018 at 8:52:09 PM PDT
To: gilleyb@pdx.edu

Cc: Chris Sinclair <csinclai@uoregon.edu>, ASUO President <asuopres@uoregon.edu>, Mike Schill <pres@uoregon.edu>, John Nicols <nic@uoregon.edu>, Chris Phillips <ncp@uoregon.edu>

Dear Professor Gilley –

I read your Oregonian Op-Ed today at https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/07/oregon_campuses_need_intellect.html

There’s much I agree with. However I want to set the record straight regarding the UO Senate resolution that you mention. I was UO Senate Vice President last year (and am president this year), and I helped write the resolution. You seem to have mis-read it as supporting the “hecklers’ veto”. It does not. It clearly states:

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the UO Senate supports the rights of students to peacefully protest during university events, even disruptively, so long as those protests do not prevent speakers from being heard and the audience from hearing what they have to say; 

This is the latest in a series of Senate actions that have all taken the same stand – supporting the rights of speakers, and protesters, to be heard. Here is the explanation I gave to the UO Board of Trustees last month:

… Second, I want to explain the Senate’s resolution “In Support of the UO Student Collective”. This is the group of students that disrupted President Schill’s “State of the University”speech in October.

… [UO President Schill] has said that with this resolution the Senate endorsed the sorts of disruption of classes by students who might object to something about the course content, as has occurred at other universities, such as Reed and Evergreen, where students have essentially shut down courses on particular subjects.

This is not at all what our Senate has endorsed. The resolution states clearly:

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the UO Senate supports the rights of students to peacefully protest during university events, even disruptively, so long as those protests do not prevent speakers from being heard and the audience from hearing what they have to say; 

https://senate.uoregon.edu/entry/?Motions=US17/18-02

I’m not a lawyer, but this language is consistent with everything I understand about the First Amendment, everything I believe about academic freedom, and everything that UO’s other policies on these matters state. People have a right to speak, and those who object to that speech have the right to have their objections heard even if that disrupts and causes inconvenience for the speaker and the audience.

What those who object cannot do, and again I quote from our resolution, is prevent speakers from being heard and the audience from hearing what they have to say. 

Our resolution does not endorse the sorts of disruptions that prevent faculty, or our President, from teaching what they want to teach or saying what they want to say. It specifically speaks against that, only allowing “disruption” so long as that disruption doesn’t prevent the professor’s lecture, or for that matter the President’s talk, from continuing.

Our resolution does not endorse allowing the actions of the Students Collective taking the podium and shutting down President Schill’s address – although it does call for some leniency in their subsequent discipline, and some reforms to make sure free speech discipline cases are handled with special care. These were students, after all.

If this is not clear, please see the UO policy on Academic Freedom, which the Senate passed in 2014 and which the UO President signed, which states:

The University’s responsibility to help students to think critically and independently requires that members of the university community have the right to investigate and discuss matters, including those that are controversial, inside and outside of class, without fear of institutional restraint. It is the responsibility of speakers, listeners and all members of our community to respect others and to promote a culture of mutual inquiry throughout the University community.

Or see the UO Policy on Freedom of Inquiry and Free Speech, which we passed in 2010, which states:

The University supports free speech with vigor, including the right of presenters to offer opinion, the right of the audience to hear what is presented, and the right of protesters to engage with speakers in order to challenge ideas, so long as the protest does not disrupt or stifle the free exchange of ideas. 

(https://policies.uoregon.edu/policy/by/1/01-administration-and-governance/freedom-inquiry-and-free-speech)

I don’t see how the Senate and the faculty could be any more clear about our position, and I’m tired of hearing people misrepresent it. Though of course I’m open to any arguments, even disruptive ones.

Thank you. Questions?

I hope that this makes clear that this UO Senate resolution is not a good example of faculty opposition to free-speech, and that you will search for a better one to use instead.

I’m posting this on the UO Senate website, and I’m ccing professor Chris Sinclair (Math), who was Senate President when this motion passed, the current ASUO student president, UO President Mike Schill, as well as UO professors John Nicols (History) and Chris Philips (Math) since they are the UO NAS members that I know.

Thanks,

Bill Harbaugh
Economics Prof & Senate Pres
University of Oregon
http://senate.uoregon.edu